"If that was your point, why did you cut and paste a SLAPP suit that had nothing to do with any illegal activity?"
Hi: Barb: My reading of the suit is that it DOES involve allegations of illegal activity. Here are just some the allegations:
"VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: SECURITIES FRAUD (RCW 21.20.ET SEQ.)
"IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS
EXPECTANCY
" X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FEDERAL RICO (28 USC §1962)
" XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: WASHINGTON'S CRIMINAL PROFITEERING ACT
Thus your statement that these charges are not criminal in nature is patently wrong.
Your second point isn't true either. I did make an inference from the positions you've taken, but before concluding with a judgment, asked if that was, in fact, your position (which carries the implication that I could be reading your wrong. If I did, then I apologize). However, that is hardly putting words into your mouth.
And I don't need to visit the SEC site to verify your statement that most stock collusion has happened to date on the long side. I can easily accept that as true. However, with the arrival of the Internet, bringing with it a plethora of stock chat boards, the ability of shorters to play the same game that the pump and dumpers have been playing since stock trading first began is now upon us. Your statement that "practically no cases" of shorting suits being have been filed is proof that it does happen. And IMO, WILL happen with increasing frequency, given the opportunities the Net provides. |
